Documenting six year struggle to get solution to mystery understood.

Excerpt from EAA Chapter 204 Newsletter of July 1990

I went to Watsonville by car on Saturday afternoon and the turn-out was good. The Wheeler Express was there and many other homebuilts. A plane has to be built before 1955 to be considered an antique so I have ten years to go for my Mooney.
The next weekend was the Merced Fly-in. To compare the two is easy. I could have flown into Watsonville for the event and then had to pay six bucks to enter the grounds like all visitors. All flying stopped while the airshow was on. The one way exhibition lanes were cul de sacs. There were long delays for takeoffs.
On the other hand, I flew into Merced and paid no entry fee. People were lined up on the taxiways watching all the planes and I felt like a WWII bomber pilot following and being followed by other planes. Traffic in the air was intense but fair and safe. The aircraft viewing lanes were open so one could walk around and never repeat. The aircraft selection was extremely varied. I would estimate about two hundred homebuilts, warbirds, and antiques, and five hundred production visitors. There was no formal airshow, the participants were the show as a constant stream of very interesting airplanes were landing and taking off and taxiing. It was a dynamic show with something going on all the time. There was no delay for landing and a short delay for takeoff. It was a great warmup for Oshkosh.
The next weekend was a Mooney fly-in at Columbia and the Porterville fly-in. The Mooney fly-in was about eighty Mooneys parked on the grass and camping out at the campground which is only accessible by plane. There are showers, electricity, and hot water. It is a good group of people and a wide variety of airplanes; from an upgraded older Mooney such as mine to a newish 252 with GEM engine analyzer and Stormscope, and turbo, and prop deice and speed brakes. The list of neat things just goes on and on.
The Porterville fly-in has an airshow and at night a loud band with plenty of drinking. Most campers did not get to sleep until 1 AM and a burglar alarm went off at 5:10 AM and continued until 5:40 AM. The balloons lifted off at 6:30 AM in the still San Joaquin Valley. Then the ultralights took of on the taxiway next to where my plane was parked and my tent was pitched. It is quite a wakeup call to get a burglar alarm then a two cycle firestorm of noise coming right at me in my sealed up tent. The tower was active on Saturday but not Sunday. It seems the trick is to arrive Friday night and leave Saturday afternoon. The new tent and sleeping bag works fine. They are lightweight, easy to put up and don't take up too much room.
The next weekend was Father's Day and I took my Dad and his best friend up to the Columbia Father's Day Fly-in. We picked up tower conversation 90 miles out and it was busy. The portable tower later asked everyone to depart the ATA for ten minutes while he got out about fifteen departures. We flew over the airport up high and could see hundreds of planes on the ground and many orbiting to land. We cancelled and flew to Fresno for lunch.
This last weekend we went to Atwater and the Castle Air Force Base Museum. It is a small strip and the taxi ride is $7.50 to the free Museum. There is a restaurant. The SR-71 has been there a week and a half. My impressions were the evolution of the bomber is there to see. When they get the B-36 it will be complete from the B17, B18, B23, B24, B25, B-26, B29, B36, B45, B47, B50, and B52. As an amateur historian I found it fascinating to trace the thinking from straight wings to swept, from piston to jet, from single pilot to dual, from delta to tail, from supersonic to sub sonic, from guns to missiles, and from loud to stealth.
On July 6, we are off on a three week jaunt to Florida, the Caribbean, and then to Oshkosh. Full report to follow.
From NTSB Reporter of May 1990: "The NTSB has released its Probable Cause in the incident involving United Flight 811 on February 24, 1989. Nine people were swept out of the Boeing 747 when a cargo door blew out. The aircraft was climbing through FL220 on a flight from Honolulu to New Zealand.
The NTSB cited the airline, the manufacturer and the FAA in the incident. It found that the cargo door's locking mechanisms 'allowed the door to be unlatched, yet show a properly latched and locked position...' to personnel responsible for ensuring proper door latching. It faulted United for failing to follow FAA requirements that 747 cargo doors be inspected for proper latching when closed manually. The NTSB cited Boeing for design deficiencies and the FAA for failure to take positive corrective action after a Pan Am 747 on a London to New York flight about two years before the flight 811 incident..."
Opinion: I believe that Pan Am Flight 103 which crashed at Lockerbie was not caused by a bomb but was caused by cargo door failure.
The cause of the crash of Pan Am Flight 103 was a catastrophic structural failure; but, what caused the structural failure?
Why it was a structural failure:
Came down in pieces.
Sudden radar contact lost.
Sudden because of CVR hiss then silence.
No radio calls of trouble.
No mid-air collision.
Not lost.
No sudden impact with ground.
No fire or other mechanical problems.
Why it was a bomb that caused structural failure:
Revenge motive for terrorists for Vincennes Airbus shootdown.
Blowing up airplanes with bombs has been done before.
Traces of explosive on fragments of skin detected by machine.
Good reputation of British to detect bomb because of IRA bombings.
Warning that 103 would be bombed.
Sudden silence after short hiss on CVR.
Pieces of wreckage.
A small bomb at a certain place in a certain place in hold could cause structural failure.
A small bomb could have been placed in cargo hold disguised as cassette recorder.
It is better for interested parties that it be a bomb.
Why it was cargo door failure that caused structural failure:
Old 747 airplane.
Pan Am had other 747 planes with cargo door problems.
Loaded at night.
Airworthiness Directive on 747 cargo doors based on other incidents of door opening in flight.
Hiss on tape as depressurization occurs.
Flight path at highest pressure when structural failure occurs.
Cargo doors have caused crashes before such as DC 10.
United 747 out of Honolulu was previously Pan Am plane and cargo door opened which tore open side of plane and which co-pilot mistakenly radioed, "We just had a bomb go off."
Why it wasn't bomb:
Usually, no warning on terrorist acts.
No explosion on tape.
Bomb theory was decided upon only two days after crash when most crashes take a year or two before decision is made.
It is too high odds that the small bomb had to placed by bad luck at a certain place in the baggage hold to do enough damage to destroy plane,
and too much coincidence that the crashed plane:
was old like the other 747s that had failed cargo doors,
had thousands and thousands of pressurizations and depressurizations,
had structural failure which occurred at highest pressure differential in flight path.
Why it wasn't cargo door:
Explosive molecules detected as traces on fragments on skin.
Why is the belief held that it was bomb?
It is in everyone's interest to believe it was a bomb:
Boeing wants to believe its planes are not falling from sky. Not their fault if terrorists crashed their plane.
Pan Am want to believe its planes are not falling from sky. Not their fault if terrorists slip through Frankfurt or Heathrow security.
Britain wants to believe that its investment in 747s in British Airways is not wasted.
Insurance companies want to believe it was random act of terrorists and not higher claims for negligence.
America wants to believe it was crazy terrorists and not that their main export profit of airliners is seriously deficient and that the inventory is falling apart.
The citizens want to believe it was outside attack by crazies and not an engineering fault/worker fault/management fault/our fault which could occur again.
Citizens ready to accept guilt for Airbus shootdown and accept eye for eye terrorist bombing.
Why is it not the belief that it was a cargo door failure?
It is against everyone's interest that it was a cargo door failure.
It will cost a lot of people a lot of money.
Insurance rates go up.
Expensive repairs to airplanes are needed in cargo door area.
Reputation destroyed of American workmanship.
Orders for planes goes down.
Fares go up to cover increased costs.
Stock prices go down.
Less travel.
The only hard evidence for bomb theory is the human interpretation by a biased machine operator (His job was to find evidence of explosives and he did.) on fragments of metal skin out of millions of fragments that he found traces of explosive. A trace is a very small amount; a fragment is a very small piece. He found something invisible (explosive molecules) on something very small (fragments).
Circumstantial evidence and logical common sense plus the ability to believe the worst would lead to cargo door failure leading to structural failure.
Hopefully, the investigation will be reopened when another 747 falls to the sky in pieces.
Managing Editor,
Flying


Dear Sir, or Madam, 3/25/92
Pan Am 103 was not downed by a bomb, but by the sudden depressurization of a cargo door opening either by mechanical failure or uncommanded input by an electrical short, just like Flight 811. Pan Am 103 was higher and popped, just as a partially filled balloon will deflate; a balloon fully inflated will pop.
There is more physical evidence to prove a cargo door than there is to prove a bomb on 103. The number three engine of the 103 747 was filled with baggage debris, just as number three engine of 811.
All bomb evidence is invisible molecules on traces of bits, pieces, and fragments of twisted metal detected by machines and interpreted by humans vitally biased towards a positive finding.
Why the belief of a bomb? Because all interested parties believe it is in their best interests to blame irrational terrorists, an act of God, rather than the flawed design, creation, and maintenance of America's number one export, commercial aircraft.
Truth hurts; lies kill. Compare the doors of 103 and 811. They will be similar.


Sincerely,




John Barry Smith

(408) 659-3552
(Name omitted)
US Aviation
199 Water Street,
New York, New York 10038

Dear Mr. , 16 August 1995


This is John Barry Smith from Carmel Valley, California. We spoke on the phone today, 16 August 1995. Thank you again for the conversation.
The essential point is that I think it was an inadvertent opening of the cargo door which resulted in explosive decompression and not a bomb leading to the crash of Pan Am 103. You believe opposite.
In response to my statement that if there were a picture of the skin peeling back I would be persuaded that it was a bomb, you told me about a picture in Flight International. I immediately went down to the Monterey library which did not carry the magazine but, to my luck, the Naval Postgraduate School did, from 1962 to 1992. As a retired officer, I had access and reviewed the entire bound and unbound back issues. The enclosed copies are some of what I found.
The only visual reference I could find is this drawing. It is a drawing made by someone in a publishing group on assignment to read the report and make a picture. It has several inconsistencies and has very little credibility.
Mr. will you consider an alternate cause for the crash of 103? A quality of an intelligent mind is the ability to hold two completely opposite trains of thought at the same time. One would be the bomb theory and the other the door.
The copilot of United Flight 811 reported, "A bomb went off," when the cargo door let loose. He was wrong but based upon what he felt and heard he could have been right. Only later did he change his mind.
Will you follow the hypothetical line that it was an inadvertent opening of the cargo door which resulted in explosive decompression?
Accident investigations must rule out certain possible causes as well as rule in the probable. May we assume that the cause of the explosive decompression was not a mid-air with some foreign object? Yes, because the object should have shown up on radar, and didn't. May we assume human error was not the cause such as a pilot induced sudden pitchup? Yes, because the flight recorder information would have revealed such deviation.
Can we rule out mechanical malfunction? No, although many types of malfunction can be ruled out such as aft bulkhead breaking and shearing of the vertical stab and rudder, or other known 747 problems. If those mechanical malfunctions had occurred, the disintegration would have taken a few seconds longer and shown up on the flight recorder.
Is there a mechanical malfunction which could cause the sudden explosive decompression and explain the subsequent actions of the crash? Yes. A large hatch opening at high altitude would do it. The plane would pop like an inflated balloon. That possibility then needs to be conclusively ruled out if a different cause is to be believed.
In my opinion, the cargo door mechanical malfunction possibility has not been conclusively ruled out. It doesn't matter how much belief there is that it was something else, this possibility needs to be ruled out for the alternate bomb theory to be believed without doubt.
Mr. , please persuade me that it could not have been a cargo door.
I will always say it could have been a bomb. In my opinion, however, the scale of reasonable probability tips towards the mundane explanation of a mechanical event that happened before and happened afterward-inadvertent cargo door opening; as opposed to the tortuous, twisted, shadowy, flimsy explanation of Libyan agents, Maltese tailor shops, German bomb factories, botched British security, transferred luggage, traces of explosive on fragments, concealed warnings, and fake cassette recorders.
Let me get back to our conversation by telephone today. Thank you again for your time. I fully realize the possible futile effort of talking about a subject so close to you with a stranger on the telephone. You were gracious and patient. I recall your statement of it's not an economic thing but more important thing to find out the truth. I agree.
Of note in the Flight International article is the the investigating board declared, within a week, the cause of the crash to be a bomb found on traces on a metal pallet and no evidence of structural failure. That was fine for a quick guess but carries little weight for an accident scene miles wide. In September of 1990, the accident report was released, (which I assume you have access to, where can I get one?,) but did not address the possibility of a cargo door opening, a very curious omission for such an obvious cause, a cause you immediately speculated upon, an aging aircraft with mechanical problems.
Let us examine the drawing and then the picture of the large piece of cockpit.
It doesn't make sense. Why is the cargo door closed? Logic says that when the bomb went off and the fuselage started to disintegrate the tear would have been at a point where the fuselage was already cut, the cargo door.
The size of the bomb hole is much larger that the report stated, 50cm.
The photo picture shows a straight line cut near the cockpit, exactly what the forward fuselage of Flight 811 looked like after it limped home from its 20000 feet, lower altitude, inadvertent door opening. That 747 was also an aging aircraft. The picture shows a line consistent with a shearing action of a door torn off, not an explosive disintegration of jagged edges.
To rule out the cargo door the accident board should have done the following:
1. Where did the door land? Was it near the frame of the door as it would be if it were a bomb and the whole front of the aircraft disintegrated together? Or was it far away indicating it separated first and drifted further away?
2. Was the door found with any of the latches still intact and clasping indicating it was bomb? Or was the door found with all latches unlatched indicating the door was opened in flight?
3. Was the door compared with the door from Flight 811 which was conclusively proven to be an inadvertent door opening? Dissimilar markings would indicate a bomb. Similar markings would indicate inadvertent door opening.
4. Was the tape from 103 compared to the tape of 811 during the critical second after the event? Dissimilar would indicate bomb; similar would indicate cargo door opening.
5. Explain debris in starboard engines and not port engines. Port engine FOD indicates bomb, starboard engines indicate door.
Did the board do these steps to rule out an obvious crash cause? If they didn't, they were negligent.
To rule in the bomb I ask;
1. Where is the picture of the peeled back skin in the reconstruction of the aircraft? The omission of the important picture is alarming. As Sherlock Holmes said, "The hound should have barked, but didn't."
2. Where are the pictures of the fragments on which traces of explosive were found? They may be too small to photograph or damaged during testing. Fragments imply very small pieces and traces imply very small amounts. To find a very small amount of something on a very small piece of something among millions of very small pieces of something spread out over many square miles in a few days is not probable, is not likely, and is not believable. I believe it also rained following the crash so that may have washed off any residue.
3. Where is conclusive evidence from the terrorists. Many terrorists want credit for their cause and have code numbers or leave notes. None for Flight 103 because there is none.
4. Explain how the sequence and coincidences and lapses and bad luck could have resulted in the bomb going off when and where it did and remain plausible to a reasonable person.
If the opening of such a small hole that the bomb caused could cause an explosive decompression, why was the possibility not considered of inadvertent opening of other hatches, such as the passenger doors which can be opened from inside?
I can explain why the bomb theory holds such weight but I get into controversial opinion which might be better discussed later. Let us stick to objective facts as much as possible.
Bomb scenario...Too confusing for me but many people can explain the path as well as disagree as to the exact route.
Door scenario...several documented accidental openings on ground, documented accidental opening at 20000 feet, accidental opening at 31000 feet. Boring, sad, and completely plausible.
Which sequence is more probable, more likely, more believable?
If the door can not be ruled out, then the conclusion must be that it could be the cause just as if the bomb can not be ruled out, it must be considered to be the cause.
If the door is the cause, then your company has just saved a billion dollars. I have never written a billion dollars before and in this case, it is a real number. The damage awards are from two to twenty million. If a conservative number is five million and the number is 200 passenger sue out of the 260 killed, then a billion dollars changes hands.
If not a bomb then a cargo door, still misconduct but not wilful and therefore limited to 75000$.
Why is money important? It should act as an inducement for closed minds to consider other options, even if embarrassing or surprising. The cause of the crash should be reexamined. There are many historical precedents for catastrophes to be blamed on bombs and then later reassessed to be natural phenomena.
Changing a person's mind is the most difficult thing in the world to do. I'm open, sir, persuade me it was not a cargo door and it was a bomb. I will say it could have been a bomb. Will you say it could have been a cargo door inadvertently opening at high altitude causing explosive decompression of Flight 103?
I'm a commercial pilot, instrument rated, formerly owned a FAR Part 135 charter company, Navy P2V aircrewman, RA5C navigator, squadron legal officer, and now a retired officer.

Sincerely,
Comment: Documenting six year struggle to get solution to mystery understood.
Contents
barry@corazon.com